On these issues: it seems that despite Catherine the Great’s reservations about serfdom, serfdom rose in the 18th century due to her modernization projects. Modern projects, modern ideas on liberty, AND more serf work needed, all at the same time. Modernity rises, coloniality rises. This is interesting; people do not realize how the serfs were really like slaves (they were NOT attached to land and COULD be sold away) by this period — and the Russians managed to define them as lesser without racializing — or did they find a way to racialize?
Also on these issues: the Holocaust, and sterilization experiments. The stated goal was to extinguish bloodlines; eugenics had been popular in Latin America earlier on; in novels even earlier there seems to be this motif, let’s extinguish our darker bloodlines. The possible mixed babies are evaded, prevented, not had, die.
Translatlantic Quechuañol: see the abstract. That argument is not needed for mine but her point on Nebrija is interesting: he may have hoped language would Hispanize and create empire, but there was covert resistance to this as well as the overt resistance Piedra discusses in my favorite article. Meanwhile, there is an interesting discussion of castas and note that Restall, among others say you must be careful not to project the 19th century ideologies of race that underpinned imperialism and slavery then, back to the 16-18th centuries. To talk about race in this earlier period, we need a different vocabulary. NOTE the information here about lineage, and the way character and also knowledge was communicated through breastfeeding.
Color terms, or what appeared to be color terms, used to sort ore got transferred to racial categories. And as Mignolo points out, in the transition from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment French replaced Spanish as a knowledge-producing language. From there English and German became the languages in which races were sorted, and they used the older metal-sorting vocabulary without fully realizing how it had worked. Readings of race were preserved in translation and Indigenous knowledge was translated out.
…This is a wild article but not something I really need right now. Key takeaway: the extreme complexity of all of this; the indigenous and local contributions to all of this. My doubts re Ferreira da Silva have to do with what seems to me to be the Eurocentrism of her model: Descartes did it, the Enlightenment did it, everything that happened comes from European thought. Am I right here?